Ultraviolet on 26/1/2008 at 00:48
Somebody said something about eugenics being irrational. I didn't see anybody argue against that. Eugenics is very rational. It's just not considerate to individuals or their freedoms.
Then again, when stupid people procreate, they are damaging MY freedoms.
It's ALL rational. There's not a perspective in this debate that isn't.
Peanuckle on 27/1/2008 at 07:04
The IDEA of eugenics is rational, I think, but I don't believe that we have enough understanding on how genes randomize and interact with eachother that we would be able to pick out two people and say their child would be superman/woman. Mostly when we mess around with genetics, the test subject comes down with leukemia.
CyberFish on 29/1/2008 at 13:16
Returning, perhaps unwisely, to the topic that this thread started on before some people hijacked it into an animal rights argument...
Technically, these people have only had their marriage annulled. They can carry on living together, and no-one's actually going to go and check that they're not having sex.
I mean, if I found out that my fiancee was also my sister, I wouldn't stop sleeping with her.
SubJeff on 29/1/2008 at 22:06
Fight the power Cyberfish!
Peanuckle - one doesn't have to mess with genes in order for a process to be eugenics. There are several genetic diseases, Huntingtons for example, that are autosomal dominant and which could easily be totally wiped out within one generation. All you would have to do is screen everyone and then sterilise everyone with the gene/ban them from having children.
This is also true for recessive illnesses like Cystic Fibrosis or Sickle Cell Disease (and X linked recessive illnesses), the difference being that since it's a recessive trait not everyone with it will have the disease so sterilisation in order to end the disease is not necessary. You would have to ban carriers from having children with other carriers, or test and abort positive foetuses.
But who the hell is going to do that? Human rights much?
Rarsonic on 29/1/2008 at 23:25
Bear in mind also that what it is useless or annoying in the genepool now, might come in handy and even save mankind in certain plot twists. See a species of butterflies in Manchester (I don't remember their name, right now).
Peanuckle on 31/1/2008 at 21:29
Whenever genetic therapy gets perfected, I want wings. Big, black, bat-style wings, so I can fly my way to work and not pay exorbitant gas prices. They would have to be massive wings in order to carry my body around. I would also have to lose a crapload of weight, but also the wing muscles could be strengthened.
Aerodynamics people: Would having 4 wings make flying easier than two? Would it be easier to fly in a straight line or power-fly to a tremendous height and just glide my way to the target location?
If I opted for bat-style wings and not bird-style (skin instead of feathers) would heat loss through the skin membranes be cause for concern? Are there other organic ways of generating lift besides wings?
So many questions...
Spaztick on 31/1/2008 at 22:30
Four wings would be a harder load on you, but it would allow you to hover. Aerodynamically for forward flight two wings are more efficient, but no hover capability. I figure the heat loss will be a problem; imagine having blood pumped to two ears the size of your body without hair or feathers.
I'd want feathered wings personally, but then again if I'm gonna have wings they're gonna be made of flexible ethereal material, which solves the problem of having to deal with aerodynamics, heat loss and injury.
ladyJustice on 31/1/2008 at 23:18
Fuck you Scotts Taffer.
PigLick on 31/1/2008 at 23:24
Is that your sister Scots?
Scots Taffer on 31/1/2008 at 23:39
uh
wtf
